[NB: I'm subscribed... don't need to be CC'ed.] On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the > statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what > is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, guesswork, or > the like is necessary. Definetly. If I was to give advice, it would be to use 'Copyright (c)' etc. I was just playing devils advocate for a second and noting that there has been no precedent saying that (c) is not equivalent to c-in-a-circle (at least to my knowledge.) Because of that, it's not possible to know if (c) 1997 Foo bar Baz is a valid copyright statement, or an invalid one. > > ___ > > / \ > > | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved. > > \___/ > > Except that "No Rights Reserved" would, in > Pan-American-Copyright-Treaty cases, void your copyright. Yerp. But it's fun to say, no? ;-) Don Armstrong -- [Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause".] I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be "Operation Just 'Cause"? -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669&cid=5664907 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpl92grCAQ7A.pgp
Description: PGP signature